Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 42333 invoked from network); 8 May 2007 05:02:49 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.2) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 8 May 2007 05:02:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 19912 invoked by uid 500); 8 May 2007 05:02:53 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-geronimo-dev-archive@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 19860 invoked by uid 500); 8 May 2007 05:02:53 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@geronimo.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk list-help: list-unsubscribe: List-Post: Reply-To: dev@geronimo.apache.org List-Id: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@geronimo.apache.org Received: (qmail 19849 invoked by uid 99); 8 May 2007 05:02:53 -0000 Received: from herse.apache.org (HELO herse.apache.org) (140.211.11.133) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:02:53 -0700 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: neutral (herse.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [64.202.165.99] (HELO smtpauth05.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net) (64.202.165.99) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Mon, 07 May 2007 22:02:45 -0700 Received: (qmail 2878 invoked from network); 8 May 2007 05:02:24 -0000 Received: from unknown (64.1.214.10) by smtpauth05.prod.mesa1.secureserver.net (64.202.165.99) with ESMTP; 08 May 2007 05:02:22 -0000 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.3) In-Reply-To: <21DD1623-2FFD-429F-A7BA-00C935191FDA@planet57.com> References: <22d56c4d0705030235s1d2a91a3t2bb2c507351a98e0@mail.gmail.com> <21DD1623-2FFD-429F-A7BA-00C935191FDA@planet57.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Message-Id: <9852DD1F-1580-41C6-957F-BEEE85B6A85B@hogstrom.org> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Matt Hogstrom Subject: Re: 2.0-M4 is still under branches Date: Mon, 7 May 2007 22:02:22 -0700 To: dev@geronimo.apache.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.3) X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org I concur...if there are no objections by the end of the week I'll delete it. On May 3, 2007, at 2:41 AM, Jason Dillon wrote: > m4 never got cooked fully, which is why the branch is still there. > it was decided to just move on to m5 due to problems with the m4 > branch. The branch should probably be removed. > > --jason > > > On May 3, 2007, at 2:35 AM, Vamsavardhana Reddy wrote: > >> This may not be a big or important (??) thing... G 2.0-M4 is still >> under branches. >> https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/geronimo/server/branches/2.0-M4/ . >> We should tag the release as we have done for other milestone >> releases. >> >> Vamsi > >